{
  "id": 8554933,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WINFRED ALLEN RUMMAGE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rummage",
  "decision_date": "1972-12-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7220SC710",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "241",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 239"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 432",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566155
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0168-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 3693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.617,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20600216460496346
    },
    "sha256": "19c55b88d385b1b518465e79e380ead321707594db2750a302b8db5428bd86a6",
    "simhash": "1:9d9c30df23e413a3",
    "word_count": 615
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WINFRED ALLEN RUMMAGE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nAll of the assignments of error brought forward and argued in defendant\u2019s brief relate to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury.\nFirst, defendant contends the court erred in not defining malice. Malice is presumed from an intentional killing with a deadly weapon. State v. Parker, 279 N.C. 168, 181 S.E. 2d 432 (1971). In this case, where the evidence tended to show the defendant intentionally shot and killed Mabry with a .25 caliber pistol, there was no necessity for the court to define malice.\nBased on exceptions 3 and 4, defendant contends the court confused the definitions of second degree murder and manslaughter and failed to instruct the jury that the use of excessive force in self defense could reduce this crime from second degree murder to manslaughter. These contentions have no merit for when the charge is considered contextually it is clear the judge correctly defined second degree murder and manslaughter and instructed the jury what was required to reduce the crime from second degree murder to manslaughter.\nWe hold defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney John M. Silverstein for the State.",
      "Coble, Morton & Grigg by Ernest H. Morton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WINFRED ALLEN RUMMAGE\nNo. 7220SC710\n(Filed 29 December 1972)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 24\u2014 intentional killing \u2014 presumption of malice \u2014 failure to define malice-^no error\nIn a murder case where the evidence tended to show that defendant intentionally shot and killed deceased, it was unnecessary for the trial court to define malice in'its jury instructions since'malice is presumed from an intentional killing with a deadly weapon.\n2. Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 26, 27\u2014 instructions on second degree murder and manslaughter\nThe trial court\u2019s charge in a murder case correctly defined second degree murder and manslaughter and instructed the jury as to what was required to reduce the crime from second degree murder to manslaughter.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, Judge, 15 May 1972 Special Session of Superior Court held in Stanly County.\nDefendant, Winfred Allen Rummage, (Rummage) was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the murder of Noah Franklin Mabry (Mabry). Upon defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, the State offered evidence in material part as follows:\nRummage was \u201crunning\u201d a \u201cbootlegger\u2019s joint\u201d known as Snipe\u2019s Place. On 19 January 1971 several persons, including Mabry, were in the establishment. At about 3:00 or 3:30 p.m., Junior Pierce Almond, a patron, went to Rummage\u2019s bedroom and advised him that \u201che was fixing to have trouble . . . because they was cussing one another.\u201d Rummage went into the room and told Mabry, \u201cNoah, I am not having none of this trouble here, this mess.\u201d Mabry sat down when Rummage pushed him with a stick then \u201cjumped right back up\u201d approached defendant and said, \u201cI\u2019ll knock the goddamn hell out of you.\u201d When Mabry was about five feet from him, defendant shot him with a .25 caliber Titan pistol which defendant then \u201cpitched\u201d into a cigar box. Mabry died as a result of a single gunshot wound to the left chest.\nDefendant testified that he had twice before asked Mabry to leave Snipe\u2019s Place on 19 January 1971 and each time Mabry had returned. Defendant stated that when Mabry started towards him he \u201cbacked up against, the wall\u201d and that \u201cI shot Mr. Mabry because I was scared of him. I knowed the times before that I had saw him with a gun and he had fired at my feet.\u201d\nDefendant was found guilty of second degree murder and from a judgment imposing a prison sentence of 10 to 15 years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney John M. Silverstein for the State.\nCoble, Morton & Grigg by Ernest H. Morton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 265
}